Pat Buckley - European Life Network

“The child by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth” UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

Monday, August 22, 2016

The newest post graduate certificate in DCU entitled; Sexuality
and Sexual Health Education is pointing towards an overly sexualised, secular society
where anything goes, as long as you are in control. This collaborative
partnership between DCU school of Nursing and the Irish Family Planning
Association (IFPA) states that it will help individuals to 'make healthy
decisions about sexuality and sexual health regardless of their position in the
life span'. This loaded statement indicates that no matter what age a child is,
they will be educated about sexual decisions and explicit sexual terms and
behaviours unsuitable for their age. Now that these explicit courses are
beginning to emerge in Ireland, Irish citizens need to fully understand the
consequences and implications of such sexual programmes being promoted in
school settings and health care settings.

The course undoubtedly is promoting CSE (Comprehensive
Sexuality Education), which essentially includes issues such as abortion,
promiscuity and LGBTQIA rights. Sexuality education as proposed by this new
course promotes sexual rights at the expense of sexual health. Ultimately the
goal of such programmes is to change the sexual and gender norms of society. A
more accurate name to this course would be abortion, promiscuity and LGBTQIA
rights education.

As outlined on the DCU website the key objectives of the
course include to;

Comprehensive sexuality education is promoted by powerful organizations
such as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), International Planned
Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the Sexuality Information and Education Council
of the United States (SIECUS), and UN agencies such as the World Health
Organization (WHO), UNAIDS, UNESCO, UNICEF, and UNFPA. Even the World
Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAGGGS) promotes CSE.

The controversial nature of CSE promotes the following:

• Masturbation to children as young as 5 years old

• Encourages children to explore their gender identity

• Teaches children about orgasm, homosexual and heterosexual
sexual acts

• Promotes abortion as safe and without consequences

• Promotes CSE as a human right and promotes high risk
sexual activities as safe.

• The program also teaches children about the right to
abortion, and encourages

them to advocate for sexual rights in laws
and policies.

This comprehensive approach to sexuality education is
pornographic in nature and fails to include emotional, physical and
psychological health risks of promiscuous sexual activity.

PARENTAL RIGHTS

Despite the fact that the Universal Declaration on Human
Rights in Article 26.3

Says that: “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of
education that shall be given to their children” these programmes are taught
without adequate parental notification or consultation. This is a gross violation
of parental rights.

Provision is also being made at an international level which
grant children privacy and confidentiality further alienating parental rights.

The question to ask here is; confidentiality from whom? and
privacy from whom? This violation of the constitutional rights of parents to
guide and educate their children will make it very difficult for parents to
know what their children are being taught and shown at school. This so called ‘sexual
liberation’ of children from the parents conservative or religious views
regarding sexuality and indoctrinating them in a new worldview that coincides
with various liberal political ideologies is extremely dangerous. The purpose
of such programs is to expose children to explicit sexual content without the
knowledge or consent of their parents.

This new course offered by DCU is only the beginning, the
dangers of such explicit CSE needs to be exposed and our children must be
protected from ludicrous liberal sexual agendas.

Thursday, May 26, 2016

When will RTE adhere to the broadcasting laws of fairness
and impartiality when dealing with the issue of abortion? Over the past six
months, Ray D’Arcy, who presents an afternoon radio show for RTE, has twice
been found to be in breach of the Broadcasting Authority if Ireland (BAI)
standards in dealing with the issue of abortion and the right to life of unborn
babies.

The BAI decisions were handed down following a number of
complaints by members of the public that D’Arcy’s handling of abortion was
one-sided and biased. See articles in the Journal and the Irish Independent.

The first case arose during a programme on June 9th
last year when D’Arcy interviewed Amnesty International’s Colm O’Gorman, in
relation to the group’s pro-abortion report ‘She is not a criminal: The impact
of Ireland’s abortion law’. Following
that interviewsix complaints were
lodged with the BAI on the basis that the programme was clearly in breach of
Section 39 (1) of the Broadcasting Act 2009, which stipulates that ‘all news
broadcast is reported and presented in an objective and impartial manner and
without any expression of the broadcaster's own views’.

Recently another complaint was issued to the BAI following
D’Arcy’s interview of creator of Father Ted, Graham Linehan and his wife Helen,
on 19 October of last year, regarding their experience of abortion. The
interview focused on the fact that at 12 weeks gestation their baby had been
diagnosed as having a so called ‘fatal foetal abnormality’ and on their subsequent
decision to have an abortion. The Linehans who were living in England at the
time took part in an Amnesty International video, the purpose of which was to
remove all remaining barriers to, and decriminalise abortion, in Ireland. The
BAI upheld both complaints in separate rulings and ruled that the radio
programmes did not meet the requirements for ‘fairness, impartiality and
objectivity'.

Both programmes were blatant attacks on Ireland's pro-life
laws and in particular on the Eight Amendment of the Constitution, which grants
an equal right to life to a mother and her unborn child. These programmes were
presented by D’Arcy during a period when the pro-abortion lobby is working hard
to overturn Ireland’s protection of the unborn and he failed to provide balance
by inviting someone to present a pro-life view, neither did he adequately challenge
the position of the guests on the show. On the contrary he seemed to be in
agreement with them and gave them a very soft interview.

The whole affair raises a number of poignant questions .
First, why were there no balancing views during the programmes, there are a
number of groups such as ‘one day more’ whose members have experienced similar
heartbreak as the Linehans but carried their babies to term?

Another critical question relates to the interview with the
Linehans and we ask, if pro -life people came on the air, would they be given
the same soft approach?

Probably not.

The Irish media in general appears to have embraced
pro-abortion stance and seem to waste no opportunity in promoting their views. The
position of RTE however is somewhat different to the media in general, in that
they receive public funding and it is incumbent on them therefore to be more
careful about the presentation of one-sided views on critical issues such as
this.

It is high time that RTE are taken to task about their
broadcasting policies and their monitoring of individual programmes when
dealing with the issue of abortion if they are to continue to receive public
funding.

It is also clear that the time has come for RTE to take
action in regard to Ray D’Arcy.

Tuesday, March 29, 2016

The 60th session of the UN Commission on the
Status of Women took place at UN headquarters in New Yorkfrom March 14th to March 24th
finishing around 11.00PM on Holy Thursday. There has always been bias against
pro-life and pro-family NGO’s at the UN however this year’s session contained a
new and pernicious level of bias, not previously experienced by pro-life and
pro-family NGO’s.

This new level of bias first showed it ugly head in the
preparations for the session when the pro-life and family NGO’s applied for
parallel events and were told that only one event would be allowed per
organization and then were either refused outright or given slots on the most
unsuitable dates and times. Contrast that with the slots, times, dates and
numbers of events given to pro-abortion organizations many of which were given
multiple slots for their parallel events, together with more appropriate dates
and times. Radical Feminist organizations such as the Asian-Pacific resource
and Research Centre for Women (ARROW) for example were given approval for
three events -March 15, 2:30 pm, March 21, 10:30 am, March
21 4:30 pm, while the Association for Women's Rights in Development (AWID) were
given 6 events – March 168:30 am, March
16 12:30 pm, March 17 6:15 pm, March 21 10:30 am, March 21 4:30 pm, March 24
2:30 pm.

Second the CSW approved
NGO committee issued a publication for NGO’s condemning what they describe
as negativity and yes, you have guessed it, negativity consists of the pro-life
and family agenda. The following is and extract from the publication, 'NGOs and Women’s Human Rights Activists at the UN and CSW', which on page 23 sets
out some of the so called negative trends that in the view of the committee
have impeded their progress:

• Narrowing the concept of gender to only refer to women and
men

• Dissent between pro-life and pro-choice groups

• Opposition to Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights,
in particular sexual rights

• Opposition to “sexual orientation and gender identity” or
(SOGI)

• Opposition to “diverse forms of families”

• Opposition to Comprehensive Sexuality Education.

Thirdly and perhaps more serious than the other problems was
that a new level of inflexibility entered into the inter governmental
negotiations and despite strong representations from many pro-life NGO’s the
CSW outcome document, Women’s Empowerment and the Link to Sustainable
Development, (Draft) Agreed Conclusions, contains language aimed at increasing access
to contraception and abortion and teaching children inappropriate so called
comprehensive sexuality education. The health paragraph also includes a
reference to controversial sexual rights.

Thursday, February 18, 2016

The Catholic Bishops of Ireland have issued a pastoral statement on the upcoming election and in addition a number of Bishops have issued their own pastoral statements.It is vitally important that the Bishops are currently speaking out in advance of next weeks election on the necessity of voting for candidates committed to protecting unborn human life right from the time of conception and retaining the pro-life amendment to the Irish Constitution Article 40.3.3 also referred to as the 8th amendment.

Whilst it is gratifying to see this we must comment that had they spoken out in this way prior to the unfortunate referendum on marriage the result may have been different.

We focus here on the pro-life aspects of the various texts and additionally link to the full statement in each case.

18 February 2016: Pastoral Statement of the Catholic Bishops of Ireland on the Upcoming General Election

[…] A true human ecology recognises the equal right to life of every person from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death. The Constitution of Ireland embraces the right to life of the unborn child. It is a fundamental affirmation of equality, where the right to life of no child is considered of less value than that of another. We strongly oppose any weakening of the affirmation of the right to life of the unborn.

18 February 2016: Pastoral Message from Archbishop Eamon in preparation for the forthcoming General ElectionArchbishop Eamon encourages everyone to ask those who seek your vote to confirm a number of critical issues including the right to life

Archbishop Eamon asks specifically
[…] Most importantly, because the right to life is the most fundamental right of all, ask them:
Will you continue to support the equal right to life of a mother and her unborn child as enshrined in the eighth amendment of the Constitution?
We must make it clear to those who wish our vote that there are no circumstances in which the direct killing of an unborn child can ever be justified.

Abortion is an issue that is highly sensitive for many, many people. It is not just an issue in Ireland. There are and will always be, in every country in the world, people of all faiths and none who will campaign against it. Christian people will always say ‘no’ to abortion. To repeal the 8th Amendment of Bunreacht na hÉireann is to say that difficulties with acknowledging “the right to life of the unborn, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother” can be resolved by reducing to nought, the right to life of the unborn.

16 February 2016: Recognising One Another as Persons – A pre-election 2016 statement from Bishop Kevin Doran, Bishop of Elphin

The right to life is a fundamental human right. Respect for life is one of the key indicators of a civilised society. In 2013, the Government passed legislation which permitted direct abortion in certain circumstances. In recent months there has been talk of removing the right to life of the unborn from the Constitution. This talk tends to focus on babies with life-limiting conditions and, in the public debate, much of what is presented as fact is actually quite misleading. Some babies who are seriously ill only live for a very short time, while others live significantly longer. For a Christian, however, there is no such thing as a life without value. For as long as they live, children with life-limiting conditions are entitled to be loved and cared for like any other childand their parents are entitled to the support of proper peri-natal hospice services.

Some of the political parties and some individual candidates have made no secret of the fact that they favour the widespread availability of abortion, while others have begun to talk about “assisted suicide”. Pope John Paul II wrote: “To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom.” (The Gospel of Life, 20). We need to convince our politicians of the importance of supporting and promoting a culture of life that recognises the unique value of every human person, and we need to actively support those who do. Meanwhile, I find it very difficult to see how any Catholic could, in good conscience, vote for a candidate or a political party whose policy it is to legalise abortion.

16 February 2016: Statement by Archbishop Michael Neary concerning the equal protection of the right to life of mothers and unborn children

Of critical importance in any society is the unique value placed on each human life from the moment of conception to natural death. If life is not fully respected and protected then the very basis of our society is weakened. The Eighth Amendment guarantees the right to life of the unborn and the equal right to life of the mother.

Regrettably, some of those standing for election have declared their intention to work to remove this protection from our Constitution and laws. This simplistic approach to the most significant of issues is not only an outright attack on the unborn, but an affront to the charter of human rights enshrined in Ireland’s basic law.

If an unborn child has a life-limiting condition, it would be inhumane to withdraw the protection of the Constitution to their right to life. In this most significant of centenary years it is more pressing than ever “to cherish all the children of the nation equally” whether unborn or born, and irrespective of a child’s health status.

It is sad that a child’s life-limiting condition is being used to promote the agenda of those who seek to legalise abortion on much wider grounds. Candidates in the election should be questioned politely but firmly, not just on their future intentions but on their past record.

There is no moral justification for a lack of housing. It is an issue that demands investment
The vast majority of refugees are good and law-abiding people. Refugees must respect the values, laws and traditions of the host countries. Ireland and Europe must address the refugee crisis as a matter of urgency.

Pat Buckley

I was born in Galway, Ireland where I attended first Scoil Fhursa and then St Ignatius (Jesuit) College. My family moved to Cork in 1960 and I spent my last year at the Christian Brothers College in Mc Curtain street Cork (CBC).

I came to Dublin in 1963 where I met and married my wife Philomena. We have lived in Dublin since then and have been blessed with seven children and 17 grandchildren (so far). When I finished school I studied architecture through the professional institutions and I am a retired Member of the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland (MRIAI). I also hold a BSc. in psychology and political philosophy.

I currently lobby pro-life and pro-family issues at the United Nations in New York and Geneva and occasionally at the European Parliament and Council of Europe. I am a member of the pro-life, pro-family coalition operating within the international institutions and I am a consultant to the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children SPUC on UN and related matters.

Between 1978-85, as a married couple Philomena and I were involved in the presentation of Marriage Encounter Weekends and pre-marriage courses. We also represented Worldwide Marriage Encounter on a committee for the family in the Dublin Archdiocese. Between 1985-1988. I was appointed National Secretary and then President of the Catholic Secondary Schools Parents Association (CSPA). I have been lobbying pro-life issue at the UN for upwards of 12 years.

I am a past President of the National Association of Catholic Families (NACF)

Publications:

1997: Anthology of pro-life verse

IMAGES

I believe that I am allowed to use the images accompanying my blog and that they are licence- and royalty-free. However if the owner or the licensor disagrees, please contact me and I will remove it immediately.